User talk:Bongout

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You added the references tag to this article. I added a reference and removed the tag. You added the tag again. What's insufficient about my reference? It is from a scholarly, peer reviewed paper documenting this movement-in-the-making. I'm not sure I understand your objection.

Uh huh. And the added reference supports the existence of this neologism HOW, exactly? (This is, of course exactly the comment I left on my edit summary when I restored the tag.) --Calton | Talk 06:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're being so antagonistic, but it's interfering with my ability to work with you. First, you started with the sarcasm, and now, instead of replying with something adding to your edit summary, you assumed I didn't read it and didn't address my question: why isn't the reference provided enough? It is a substantative paper describing a new social movement. It's not merely a neologism as you put it. Bongout 06:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're being so antagonistic. I don't like it when someone dodges simple questions, I don't like it when someone displays obvious disingenuousness, I don't like it when someone claims to have done something they obviously haven't, and I don't like it when someone insults my intelligence. Other than that, not a thing about your response bothers me.

Third time -- and read carefully this time -- the added reference supports the existence of this neologism, the title of this article, the word you are using, HOW, exactly? You get one more shot, or it's straight off to AFD and you get to talk about it with a bunch more people. --Calton | Talk 07:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I must first warn you that you're coming dangerously close to violating the Three Revert Rule, an official policy of Wikipedia. If you do that, you may be banned and you will be temporarily blocked from editing any pages on Wikipedia.

Now, I've already explained (in here and in other forums) how the paper I included as a reference includes information about this movement. However, I will repeat it for you since you seem not to have been following this discussion very closely. In the paper cited, the researcher, Prof. Hsiung, includes data she gathered as well as a sociological analysis of both that data and data already included in the Literature to document this movement in a scholarly fashion. Again, I'm not sure why such a source would be unsatisfactory. Bongout 08:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the main problem that people are having with your reference is that they are not finding any evidence that the paper, the journal or the author even exist. If you could provide a link which would conclusively demonstrate that they do, this would help immensely. Please bear in mind that since you were the one who added this information, you have some responsibility to prove that it is not simply nonsense made up on the spot. This is not something aimed specially at you, this is standard policy. Try reading this, this and this. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 15:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)